Originally Posted by stash64
And what basis in fact are you using to back up your claim that speaker break in is "invented?
The problem with "alternative facts" is that they sound just plausible enough for someone who doesn't actually know anything to wonder if they are in fact true. But ultimately they are just vile propaganda targeting dumb people.
Here's Dr. Floyd Toole's description of the only actual scientific inquiry into the break-in scam known to me:
"In parts of the audio industry, there is a belief that all components from wires to electronics to loudspeakers need to 'break in.' Out of the box, it is assumed that they will not be performing at their best. Proponents vehemently deny that this process has anything to do with adaptation, writing extensively about changes in performance that they claim are easily audible in several aspects of device performance. Yet, the author is not aware of any controlled test in which any consequential audible differences were found, even in loudspeakers, where there would seem to be some opportunities for material changes. A few years ago, to satisfy a determined marketing person, the [Harman] research group performed a test using samples of a loudspeaker that was claimed to benefit from 'breaking in.' Measurements before and after the recommended break-in showed no differences in frequency response, except a very tiny change around 30–40 Hz in the one area where break-in effects could be expected: woofer compliance. Careful lisening tests revealed no audible differences. None of this was surprising to the engineering staff. It is not clear whether the marketing person was satisfied by the finding. To all of us, this has to be very reassuring because it means that the performance of loudspeakers is stable, except for the known small change in woofer compliance caused by exercising the suspension and the deterioration—breaking down—of foam surrounds and some diaphragm materials with time, moisture, and atmospheric pollutants. It is fascinating to note that 'breaking-in' seems always to result in an improvement in performance. Why? Do all mechanical and electrical devices and materials acquire a musical aptitude that is missing in their virgin state? Why is it never reversed, getting worse with use? The reality is that engineers seek out materials, components, and construction methods that do not change with time. Suppose that the sound did improve over time as something broke in. What then? Would it eventually decline, just as wine goes 'over the hill'? One can imagine an advertisement for a vintage loudspeaker: 'An audiophile dream. Model XX, manufactured 2004, broken in with Mozart, Schubert, and acoustic jazz. Has never played anything more aggressive than the Beatles. Originally $1700/pair. Now at their performance peak—a steal at $3200!'"
Toole, Sound Reproduction,